Obama is right to withhold photos of bin Laden's corpse

President Obama is updated during the raid that killed Osama bin Laden

(Image: The White House)

The US president is showing astute caution in refusing to release the photos of Osama bin Laden’s corpse

Despite many calls for him to do so, President Obama has so far ruled out releasing photographs taken of Osama bin Laden after he was killed by US special forces.

According to a few who have seen them, the pictures are graphic and exceptionally gruesome. Bin Laden’s injuries apparently include a great wound on his forehead through which brain matter is visible and a large gaping hole where one of his eyes should be. “I think that, given the graphic nature of these photos, it would create some national security risk,” Obama said in a television interview. “It is important for us to make sure that very graphic photos of somebody who was shot in the head are not floating around as an incitement to additional violence, as a propaganda tool.”

Advertisement

Psychological research suggests Obama is right to be worried about the impact of these photographs. Gruesome images pack a powerful emotional punch and can deeply affect us psychologically. Lawyers in court cases are very much aware of this. Where they can, prosecution teams often try to repeatedly expose juries to shocking crime scene and autopsy photographs of murder victims or the aftermath of lethal accidents. The lawyers expect that the photographs will help to turn the jury against the defendant, and a growing body of research supports this view.

All other evidence being equal, juries exposed to very graphic photographs of the dead or seriously injured are more likely to convict than juries which do not see such images and are less demanding in the burden of proof that they need to reach their verdict. Colour photographs have more of an effect than black-and-white ones. The more graphic the image, the more impact it has (Behavioral Sciences and the Law, vol 27, p 273).

In trying to explain this effect, researchers have focused on the emotional impact of such images. Gruesome pictures lead to increasing emotional arousal in viewers, with the emotions experienced including anger, fear, anxiety and disgust. As the emotional intensity rises it is accompanied by a decline in frontal lobe cognitive functioning. Cooler, objective consideration of the evidence and issues is undermined. Crucially, juries are largely unaware of their changing perspectives – in self-assessments they rate themselves just as rational and objective as jurors who have not seen the images. But their verdicts tell a different story. These findings have led to calls for a ban or at least a substantial restriction in the use of graphic images in court cases.

As well as the increase in emotional arousal, part of the reason why gruesome images have such an impact can be traced to what psychologists refer to as “mortality salience”. This can be provoked by a number of factors, but one of the clearest is exposure to death-related imagery. Graphic photographs of those who have suffered violent deaths unquestionably fall into this category, but even far more subtle images can bring on the effect.

Mortality salience has a number of psychological effects. After exposure to death-related images, people will usually feel a greater pride in and identification with their country, religion, gender, race, and so on. They experience exaggerated tendencies to stereotype and reject those who are different from themselves. The group they belong to is even better than it was before, even more worthy of support. Rivals are diminished, less deserving of sympathy or compassion. Those who are perceived as different or as a threat are regarded with hostility.

These changes in attitude and perceptions are linked to changes in behaviour. Some of these are relatively subtle, such as sitting closer to a person who shares one’s culture, while moving away from those seen as foreigners. Others are starker, including increased physical aggression towards anyone critical of one’s cherished beliefs.

Critically for the bin Laden case, mortality salience has also been found to lead to an increase in support for extremism linked to group identity. For example, one study found that it caused white Americans to show more sympathy and support for other whites who expressed racist views. In the Middle East, researchers found that Muslim students under mortality salience conditions expressed more support and sympathy for suicide bombers, and a greater willingness to carry out such attacks themselves (Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, vol 32, p 525).

Releasing images of bin Laden’s corpse will provoke this effect across the world, many parts of which are already unsympathetic – if not downright hostile – to the US. Among people who identify with Al-Qaida, the images can be expected to increase sympathy and support for militant groups, especially ones that claim to be the defenders of cultural identity. Linked to this will be increased hostility towards the enemies of that identity – the US and its allies, in other words – and an increased willingness to engage in violence. In short, the risks in many parts of the world would go up.

Yet it is also important to note that releasing the images would have some benefits. Within the US, release would likely to be associated with increased support for the president and the government. Obama’s approval rating among Americans has risen six points since bin Laden’s killing was announced. Release of the images would probably push it a few points higher, at least for a short while.

Even so, Obama is right. Writing in 2005, the new commander of Al-Qaida, Ayman al-Zawahiri, reminded his followers that they were in a “media battle for the hearts and minds” of the Muslim world. The Americans are also locked in this battle, and in holding the photos back Obama is showing astute caution.